Black Ops or Halo Reach???

[Dark Claws]

Point taken. Although annoyed, point taken.

[Gen. Volkov]

I would like to retract my earlier statements about Neo and say I apologized to him.

Good.

Didn't say the concept is new. Few concepts for games as a whole are new, they're just spins on something familar. Games like Half-life 2 are very original in the way they present the concept, not in the concept itself.  

*Sigh* If the point of that section of my post was a train, you'd be in the wrong station, 3 hours late and 5 counties over from where it was, completely missing it. Half-Life was very original in how it presented a particular concept. Half-Life 2, being a sequel, was not. It was still a very good game, but it wasn't particularly original.

Also worth noting the first COD was released in 2003. Before Half-life 2, and only 3 years after the first Deus Ex. So whilst not exactly an old game, it's not exactly new. So how do all modern games suck if, by your logic, Skyrim isn't a modern game?

The first COD was pretty OK. Even the second one. Past that, they suck. They are excuses to have a multiplayer combat sim with a token single-player campaign. The difference between the sequels to COD and sequels like Skyrim and Half-Life 2 is that the COD sequels are EXACTLY the same game, but with better graphics, and have no real story to drive them. Skyrim and Half-Life 2 do have minor gameplay changes, and are entirely story driven.

I see what you mean by saying Skyrim isn't a modern game, but I would disagree with that, because a game is more then just a concept. The execution is also key. And the way they've changed the games since Morrowind has, in my opinion, has both had a very positive and slightly negative effect on the execution of the concept, and thus the resulting experience.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You contradict yourself to many times to actually be saying anything.

Misinterpreting what I said. Not saying I want people to "crank out the same crap year after year," what I said was I'd rather enjoy a game for being fun then being original. I think taking chances are good, because you do get some fantastic results, and I don't think taking chances should be discouraged, but I'm just saying originality alone does not make a good game.

I wasn't misinterpreting at all. This is you changing what you said, but not really. Anyway, no, a game being original doesn't automatically make it good, but I'd much rather see companies put out an original game that fails, than put out yet another CoD sequel that is exactly the same as the previous CoD game, but guaranteed to make money. I think I do kind of understand what you are saying. One of my favorite game series is Ratchet and Clank. The first one was rather original and lots of fun. The sequels have been less original, but still lots of fun, they have also introduced enough new weapons and gameplay elements to keep the games fresh. On the other hand, the storylines are pretty formulaic, mostly an excuse to present the next puzzle or to kill staggeringly large amounts of enemies. So they are fun, but they don't compare to a game like Portal or Portal 2.

Perhaps I should rephrase that to "some people do not enjoy/embrace new concepts." You can't deny that.

I can't deny that, but a lot of that is because people are conditioned to not enjoy or embrace new things.

Valid point. Then again, could easily be argued the updates would not be available for those without xbox live.

Honestly, at this point, who doesn't have Xbox Live? Or the PSN? But perhaps there are enough consumers to keep the demand for a new game with the new rosters coming out on a yearly basis. I doubt it though.

I personally don't buy new fifa games every year, but most people I know who do don't regret it or complain, where as they do so about the COD games.

Most of that is probably because it's sports, and people are dumb about sports.

The only post that could be applied to is the Wii one, and the processing power/quality of graphics is less subjective than the state of the industry seeing as you have some actual objective data to support your arguments with.

No, it's applicable to every post.

In your opinion. This game has been a great year for gaming on the whole, despite the stinkers like MW3. Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Assassins Creed Revelations, Arkham City, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Rayman Origins, Zelda Skyward Sword.

OK, you do realize that out of the 150-200 games released this year, you have identified exactly 7 as being good, several of which I would dispute were good at all? On that basis, you say this is a "great year" for gaming? That is sad, and pretty much totally makes my point.

Not denying there are a lot of bad games, but I do think you might be too critical of modern games. Overall, I enjoy most games I buy and have really enjoyed some enough to spend literally days on them. (though I do only own about 12-18 360 games)

I think you are far too uncritical of modern games. It's not your fault though. You grew up in this environment. You haven't known anything different. I did, and I have, and I am saying, modern games suck.

I talked about it as an experience and in terms of gameplay. Posts below.

You talked about it as an experience, and then you contradicted basically everything you had said in the earlier post when you started talking about gameplay.

The game I ranted about as an experience was Mass Effect 2. I made some passing mentions of Deus Ex. I'm not sure why Deus Ex is being discussed so much, lol.

Because you keep bringing it up.

Never said it would be a bad game. Just pointing out that the setting and storyline does have a role.

Well thanks, Captain Obvious. Also, you changed your point again.

What, so there's a fixed date somewhere, and after that every game released is terrible?

Well not exactly, but in 2000 they were still generally making good games. Seemed like sometime around mid-decade, everything started going to crap.

Human Revolution is not as good, no, but it is nevertheless a very enjoyable game.

Too you, I'm sure it is.

In some ways I'd say it actually surpasses the original.

No, it doesn't.

In terms of theme, it's a lot more relevant to the world today,

Considering that it came out over a decade after the original, of course it's going to have more immediate connections to the world today. The stuff that concerned us in 2000 doesn't concern us as much in 2011. But in terms of overall relevance, both games deal with the same fundamental issues, more or less, and Deus Ex does it much better.

and I prefer the combat and aesthetic style.

Good for you.

But he didn't attack Sharp about it, he attacked me.

In what way? He quotes both of you before he does the all caps deal. If you want to interpret that as an attack on you, fine, whatever, but that doesn't mean that was the case.

Then either my memory is poor or yours is good.

Well, I have no idea what your memory is like, but mine is pretty good.

[Firetooth]

*Sigh* If the point of that section of my post was a train, you'd be in the wrong station, 3 hours late and 5 counties over from where it was, completely missing it. Half-Life was very original in how it presented a particular concept. Half-Life 2, being a sequel, was not. It was still a very good game, but it wasn't particularly original.

Half-life 2 and Half-life are noticeably different, but if you want to be pedantic, treat every time I posted Half-life 2 as though the 2 isn't there.

Out of curiosity, what do you want from a sequel? Do you think every game should be an entirely new chapter and adventure, to preserve originality, or would you prefer some loyalty to the universe and games people love? I'm generally curious.

The first COD was pretty OK. Even the second one. Past that, they suck. They are excuses to have a multiplayer combat sim with a token single-player campaign. The difference between the sequels to COD and sequels like Skyrim and Half-Life 2 is that the COD sequels are EXACTLY the same game, but with better graphics, and have no real story to drive them. Skyrim and Half-Life 2 do have minor gameplay changes, and are entirely story driven.

I'm not saying they're good.

By your own logic, the new COD games are not modern games. Hence, using them as an example of why modern games doesn't work.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You contradict yourself to many times to actually be saying anything.

What I'm saying is that I understand your view but disagree with it.

I wasn't misinterpreting at all. This is you changing what you said, but not really. Anyway, no, a game being original doesn't automatically make it good, but I'd much rather see companies put out an original game that fails, than put out yet another CoD sequel that is exactly the same as the previous CoD game, but guaranteed to make money. I think I do kind of understand what you are saying. One of my favorite game series is Ratchet and Clank. The first one was rather original and lots of fun. The sequels have been less original, but still lots of fun, they have also introduced enough new weapons and gameplay elements to keep the games fresh. On the other hand, the storylines are pretty formulaic, mostly an excuse to present the next puzzle or to kill staggeringly large amounts of enemies. So they are fun, but they don't compare to a game like Portal or Portal 2.

How is that changing what I said? I said I prefer a game being enjoyable then being original, which is what that last post said. Good to see we kind of agree though. And just being unoriginal doesn't necessarily mean it's COD 12 or whatever.

I can't deny that, but a lot of that is because people are conditioned to not enjoy or embrace new things.

True, but that isn't much to do with the video game industry.

Honestly, at this point, who doesn't have Xbox Live? Or the PSN? But perhaps there are enough consumers to keep the demand for a new game with the new rosters coming out on a yearly basis. I doubt it though.

Right.

Most of that is probably because it's sports, and people are dumb about sports.

Maybe, but many of the people I'm talking about aren't sport fanatics, just enthusiasts.

No, it's applicable to every post.

Well, if you that's how you interpret them.

OK, you do realize that out of the 150-200 games released this year, you have identified exactly 7 as being good, several of which I would dispute were good at all? On that basis, you say this is a "great year" for gaming? That is sad, and pretty much totally makes my point.

First off, listing 7 doesn't mean that's how many I think are good, it's how many I'm listing as examples.

Secondly, you are looking through some seriously rose-tinted glasses if you think ten years ago every game released was good. There have always been plenty of terrible games released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_video_games_ever

I think you are far too uncritical of modern games. It's not your fault though. You grew up in this environment. You haven't known anything different. I did, and I have, and I am saying, modern games suck.

Fair enough, I can't comment based on 10-20 years ago, but I'm also not saying modern games are better. Just that not all of them are bad.

Well thanks, Captain Obvious. Also, you changed your point again.  

How did I change my point? The point was clear-a game isn't just a game, and without a decent storyline and engaging setting, the game isn't as good. Should I quote my original post to prove it? You may be annoyed that you think I keep changing my point, but I'm getting annoyed you always say I change my point if I phrase something differently.

Too you, I'm sure it is.

Maybe you'd enjoy it, if you didn't go in with such a negative attitude. :)

No, it doesn't.

You don't think the relevancy of the game's theme (society collapsing, rich poor divide and transhumanisim), gunplay, hacking mini-game, music (to an extent) and graphics surpass the original? Come on, Volk. I'm not saying it's a better game, I'm saying it does some things better.

Considering that it came out over a decade after the original, of course it's going to have more immediate connections to the world today. The stuff that concerned us in 2000 doesn't concern us as much in 2011. But in terms of overall relevance, both games deal with the same fundamental issues, more or less, and Deus Ex does it much better.,

Deus Ex deals with the concept of Godhood and machines reaching that level, amongst other things.

Human revolution deals with the concept of humans achieving godhood through augmentations.

Good for you.

I have a different opinion, Volk. Surely you can't be annoyed over that?

In what way? He quotes both of you before he does the all caps deal. If you want to interpret that as an attack on you, fine, whatever, but that doesn't mean that was the case.

I'm referring to his later rant post.

[Gen. Volkov]

Half-life 2 and Half-life are noticeably different, but if you want to be pedantic, treat every time I posted Half-life 2 as though the 2 isn't there.

The only original feature of Half Life 2 is that it utilizes its physics engine in some new ways, and it has better graphics. Literally everything else about that game is the same as Half-Life. Also, you are using the word "pendantic" in completely the wrong context here. I think the word you want is "quibble".

Out of curiosity, what do you want from a sequel? Do you think every game should be an entirely new chapter and adventure, to preserve originality, or would you prefer some loyalty to the universe and games people love? I'm generally curious.

I want something as original as possible, while maintaining continuity of the storyline.

By your own logic, the new COD games are not modern games. Hence, using them as an example of why modern games doesn't work.

The new CoD games are modern games, because they have lost literally everything that made the original games good. The reason for this is that the developers who made the first two CoD games stopped doing so, and after CoD 2, it was taken over by other developers who turned it into a Counterstrike rip-off with a token storyline, while still maintaining the CoD name.

What I'm saying is that I understand your view but disagree with it.

Ok, I guess, but I still have no idea what you were trying to say in that passage.

How is that changing what I said? I said I prefer a game being enjoyable then being original, which is what that last post said. Good to see we kind of agree though. And just being unoriginal doesn't necessarily mean it's COD 12 or whatever.

How is it not? You said

Originality is a key point, but at the end of the day I'd rather a game, film or book was good but a little cliche, like Avatar, then original but really poor quality.

then you say

I think taking chances are good, because you do get some fantastic results, and I don't think taking chances should be discouraged

Which is very nearly the opposite. You are basically saying in the first post that it's ok not to take chances, in fact your prefer it, because at least it will produce blandly enjoyable mediocrity, and then in the second post you say that you think taking chances is good. That is pretty much the definition of changing what you said. Then of course you go on to reiterate the original point, but more carefully couched with ambiguous phrasing.

True, but that isn't much to do with the video game industry.

Of course it is! We live in a world where the majority of video games are cookie-cutter crap, and people eagerly buy them because they are safe and comfortable. We have been conditioned to do so by the video game industry, among other things.

Maybe, but many of the people I'm talking about aren't sport fanatics, just enthusiasts.

The difference between a sports enthusiast and sports fanatic is that a sports enthusiast won't go to a game wearing nothing but shorts and body paint in 10 degree weather, and a sports fanatic will. Just because they aren't insane, does not mean they aren't very passionate about their sport/team.

Well, if you that's how you interpret them.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't still be sitting there arguing with me, because you are literally the only person over the age of 16 who doesn't agree with Neo's position.

First off, listing 7 doesn't mean that's how many I think are good, it's how many I'm listing as examples.

Usually the number you list is the number you can think of at the time, and given how long you had to make that post, I'm willing to bet that was all you could think of.

Secondly, you are looking through some seriously rose-tinted glasses if you think ten years ago every game released was good. There have always been plenty of terrible games released.

Didn't say that. But I do think that 10 years ago, the proportion of good games to crap games was higher than it is today. Notice how, in your link, as you get closer to the present, the list of terrible games gets longer. This is not coincidence.

Fair enough, I can't comment based on 10-20 years ago, but I'm also not saying modern games are better. Just that not all of them are bad.

The implication that modern games are better is certainly there, for example you said Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a better game in some respects.

How did I change my point? The point was clear-a game isn't just a game, and without a decent storyline and engaging setting, the game isn't as good. Should I quote my original post to prove it? You may be annoyed that you think I keep changing my point, but I'm getting annoyed you always say I change my point if I phrase something differently.

Either you honestly don't remember what you said, don't realize the implications of what you are saying, or just think I am stupid. Those are the only explanations I have for this post. You were asking Neo earlier if Deus Ex would be as good a game if it was not set when it was set, and he never answered. You then asked me basically the same question, and I answered that it didn't really matter when it was set, the story would work in pretty much any modern setting. Then you changed your point to being about storylines, and completely neglected the setting. What part of this do you not understand? You aren't phrasing something differently, you are changing what you said so that you aren't wrong anymore, and it is very annoying.

Maybe you'd enjoy it, if you didn't go in with such a negative attitude.

I don't have a negative attitude, I have a realistic one.

You don't think the relevancy of the game's theme (society collapsing, rich poor divide and transhumanisim), gunplay, hacking mini-game, music (to an extent) and graphics surpass the original? Come on, Volk. I'm not saying it's a better game, I'm saying it does some things better.

The only thing better about the sequel is the graphics, because it was made 10 years later. Everything else you talk about is present in the original game, (except maybe the hacking minigame, which I don't remember if it's present or not) and done better. Societal collapse, and a rich poor divide define the entire genre of dystopianism. Transhumanism is what a cyborg character is all about. Both have gunplay, because they are FPS games, but Deus Ex does it better because it doesn't have bloody BOSS FIGHTS. The whole game is about stealth and non-lethal solutions to problems, because you are supposed to be nominally a good guy, and then you insert a boss fight which eliminates literally every aspect of what the game is supposed to be about. It might, maybe, work if there was one, but there are multiple boss fights, and you have literally no choice in the matter, which eliminates another aspect of the game about which you are so enthused.

Deus Ex deals with the concept of Godhood and machines reaching that level, amongst other things.

Human revolution deals with the concept of humans achieving godhood through augmentations.

These are two sides of the same coin. The basic question is one of identity. How many body parts can be replaced by artificial ones before you cease being human? If you never do, then how close does a machine have to be to being human to be considered a human? These are the basic questions of the cyborg genre, and are addressed in both games. In the case of Deus Ex, there is an additional question, which is, can an all powerful being that is mostly, if not entirely artificial, remain human? This, again, is a common theme in the cyborg genre.

I have a different opinion, Volk. Surely you can't be annoyed over that?

I'm not annoyed. Just disappointed.

I'm referring to his later rant post.

You mean after you attack him, calling him egotistical and melodramatic? Yeah, I can see no reason why Neo would want to say anything about you in response to that. :eyeroll:

[Shadow Assassin]

You guys do realise this is just a poll over what game is better out of Black ops and Halo?

[Gen. Volkov]

You guys do realise this is just a poll over what game is better out of Black ops and Halo?

No it's not. Because this:

Both of those games are terrible. This is now a golden age of gaming thread.

[Shadow Assassin]

Ah ok, I haven't read any of this topic anyway.

You guys are really good at arguing :) You should make it your job and become lawyers.

[Gen. Volkov]

Ah ok, I haven't read any of this topic anyway.

If you aren't going to bother to read a thing, you should not post in a thing. Especially when there are more than 6 pages of it.

You guys are really good at arguing Smiley You should make it your job and become lawyers.

No. There are much better uses for my debate skills than being a lawyer. Besides, becoming a lawyer would mean I would have to study the fine points of stuff I do not give a crap about.

[Shadow Assassin]

No. There are much better uses for my debate skills than being a lawyer. Besides, becoming a lawyer would mean I would have to study the fine points of stuff I do not give a crap about.

What uses?

[Gen. Volkov]

What uses?

You do realize that most of scientific discourse is more or less debate right? Also, much of grad school is determined by how well you can defend your conclusions.

[Shadow Assassin]

Are you in grad school?

[Gen. Volkov]

Not at present, no, but I am applying to them.

[Shadow Assassin]

Ok good luck then.

[Kilkenne]

I would like to take this opportunity to express that the way that you two (Firetooth and Volkov) have been arguing with one another is nigh impossible to read. You guys should go back to typing in paragraphs much like Firetooth was doing originally. Thoughts were much more coherent then.

[Firetooth]

The only original feature of Half Life 2 is that it utilizes its physics engine in some new ways, and it has better graphics. Literally everything else about that game is the same as Half-Life. Also, you are using the word "pendantic" in completely the wrong context here. I think the word you want is "quibble".

The physics engine is a pretty key part of the gameplay, and is a huge innovation. Also, vehicular gameplay is quite a key part of Half-life 2 and it's episodes.

pe·dan·tic  (p-dntk)
adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

Not a perfect definition, but I think it applies considering I mentioned just ignoring one number. Quibble is a great word though haha, so I may use that instead in future.

I want something as original as possible, while maintaining continuity of the storyline.

Fair enough, but how exactly can a sequel be "original" and satisfy you? It has to follow the same kind of gameplay and design concepts as before, or it will not please the hardcore audience. Besides, if you have a winning formula and you are on the last act of the story, it may be best to just stick with that with some minor improvements, because by that stage people will be there for the story just as much as the gameplay.

The new CoD games are modern games, because they have lost literally everything that made the original games good. The reason for this is that the developers who made the first two CoD games stopped doing so, and after CoD 2, it was taken over by other developers who turned it into a Counterstrike rip-off with a token storyline, while still maintaining the CoD name.

Fair enough. Would you consider, say, Fallout 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution modern games then, as they are made by modern developers, and in the case of Fallout 3, play quite a bit different? Once again, genuine curiosity.

Ok, I guess, but I still have no idea what you were trying to say in that passage.

I see what you mean by saying Skyrim isn't a modern game, but I would disagree with that, because a game is more then just a concept. The execution is also key. And the way they've changed the games since Morrowind has, in my opinion, has both had a very positive and slightly negative effect on the execution of the concept, and thus the resulting experience.

I'm saying I disagree because I view what makes a game good and makes a game original differently to you. I'm satisfied with the changes from Morrowind, where as you are not.

How is it not? You said

Originality is a key point, but at the end of the day I'd rather a game, film or book was good but a little cliche, like Avatar, then original but really poor quality.

then you say

I think taking chances are good, because you do get some fantastic results, and I don't think taking chances should be discouraged

Which is very nearly the opposite. You are basically saying in the first post that it's ok not to take chances, in fact your prefer it, because at least it will produce blandly enjoyable mediocrity, and then in the second post you say that you think taking chances is good. That is pretty much the definition of changing what you said. Then of course you go on to reiterate the original point, but more carefully couched with ambiguous phrasing.

You assume that just because I think originality is less important than being enjoyable that I think taking chances are bad. As the audience of a film, game or book, surely you'd prefer something that is cliche but good rather then something that's compelling but stinks? I never said I prefer chances not being taken, I said I prefer a product that is enjoyable than to one that isn't, even if the unenjoyable product is original. I then went on to say that taking chances is still a good thing though.

Of course it is! We live in a world where the majority of video games are cookie-cutter crap, and people eagerly buy them because they are safe and comfortable. We have been conditioned to do so by the video game industry, among other things.

Amongst other things being the key three words. The video game industry isn't the main factor causing people to not want originality or change. Though you are right that the industry doesn't necessarily promote innovation.

The difference between a sports enthusiast and sports fanatic is that a sports enthusiast won't go to a game wearing nothing but shorts and body paint in 10 degree weather, and a sports fanatic will. Just because they aren't insane, does not mean they aren't very passionate about their sport/team.

Agreed.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't still be sitting there arguing with me, because you are literally the only person over the age of 16 who doesn't agree with Neo's position.

Now this I can't agree with.

Sharptooth and Kilk (and possibly Uiblis?) are both older then 16, yet both disagree with Neo. Not clear on Windhound's view, but I don't think it's the same, either. The reason a lot of people aren't arguing is because they don't want to get chewed out. Hence my earlier point to Neo about civil debating.

Usually the number you list is the number you can think of at the time, and given how long you had to make that post, I'm willing to bet that was all you could think of.

I made that post before school in about 3-5minutes, and that was a small part of the post, so yeah, probably all I could think of in a short period of time.

Didn't say that. But I do think that 10 years ago, the proportion of good games to crap games was higher than it is today. Notice how, in your link, as you get closer to the present, the list of terrible games gets longer. This is not coincidence.

No, but it also doesn't necessarily prove your point. There is an increase, but not necessarily because the industry is getting worse. The amount of "worst ever games" goes about by one every decade. That is within a growing industry. I have no idea how many games were released a year in the 80's, but I'm guessing it isn't anywhere near the level it is today.

The implication that modern games are better is certainly there, for example you said Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a better game in some respects.

Better in some respects. I clearly said the first Deus Ex is the better game, and if I were to list my top 10, or even 5, favourite games, less then 50% would be released after 2005.

Either you honestly don't remember what you said, don't realize the implications of what you are saying, or just think I am stupid. Those are the only explanations I have for this post. You were asking Neo earlier if Deus Ex would be as good a game if it was not set when it was set, and he never answered. You then asked me basically the same question, and I answered that it didn't really matter when it was set, the story would work in pretty much any modern setting. Then you changed your point to being about storylines, and completely neglected the setting. What part of this do you not understand? You aren't phrasing something differently, you are changing what you said so that you aren't wrong anymore, and it is very annoying.

I did always mention the gameplay, but you are right on the storyline, so I apologize. I conveyed my point poorly, as I meant the setting and story. Not intentional.

I don't have a negative attitude, I have a realistic one.

Well I guess that reflects our different views on the industry.

The only thing better about the sequel is the graphics, because it was made 10 years later. Everything else you talk about is present in the original game, (except maybe the hacking minigame, which I don't remember if it's present or not) and done better. Societal collapse, and a rich poor divide define the entire genre of dystopianism. Transhumanism is what a cyborg character is all about. Both have gunplay, because they are FPS games, but Deus Ex does it better because it doesn't have bloody BOSS FIGHTS. The whole game is about stealth and non-lethal solutions to problems, because you are supposed to be nominally a good guy, and then you insert a boss fight which eliminates literally every aspect of what the game is supposed to be about. It might, maybe, work if there was one, but there are multiple boss fights, and you have literally no choice in the matter, which eliminates another aspect of the game about which you are so enthused.

Hacking in the first one is literally just click and wait. In human revolution you have to get involved and actually engage mentally, with a good deal of strategy and thinking involved. It gets a bit tedious by the end of the game, but it's still a step up for sure.

Another way it's better is that human revolution has ragdoll physics with dead/unconscious bodies, unlike the original.

You are wrong when you say they are FPS's. They are neither FPS games or RPGs, they are a hybrid, in the same way a mule isn't a donkey and a horse, it is something completely different. On that note, the way it handles RPG elements (eg. not being able to shoot straight as a nano-augmented government agent) is better and less immersion breaking in some ways.

Deus Ex does have Boss Fights, they are just handled better. I agree with you here, the Boss Fights are not good and are one of the things I disliked about Human Revolution, particularly as a stealthy character, but I have no idea how that means Deus Ex has better gunplay. Could you explain that to me? Because in terms of gameplay, I prefer the shooty parts of Human Revolution (or the parts I choose to go guns blasing) than those in the first.

I really don't know why you dislike Human Revolution, because it is exactly the opposite of the COD carbon copies you hate. If the devs were evil and didn't care about quality, they would've made a multi-player shooter with the Deus Ex logo stuck on. I think they did a good job considering how much effort it takes to make a game with so many options, branching storylines, level design that reflects the design concept and the large areas known to the Deus Ex series considering they weren't involved with the first two. This is the kind of sequel I want. One that tries to improve the gameplay whilst staying true to the theme and design principles. Infact, it arguably took some risks with the way it handled melee combat, third person perspective etc. I don't believe they necessarily worked, but you have to at least respect they tried to change things from the original.

These are two sides of the same coin. The basic question is one of identity. How many body parts can be replaced by artificial ones before you cease being human? If you never do, then how close does a machine have to be to being human to be considered a human? These are the basic questions of the cyborg genre, and are addressed in both games. In the case of Deus Ex, there is an additional question, which is, can an all powerful being that is mostly, if not entirely artificial, remain human? This, again, is a common theme in the cyborg genre.

Well, we agree here.

I'm not annoyed. Just disappointed.

Sorry to let you down.

You mean after you attack him, calling him egotistical and melodramatic? Yeah, I can see no reason why Neo would want to say anything about you in response to that. :eyeroll:

Saying something in response is different to calling somebody stupid and dense for not agreeing with you on a point that several other people raised, however I'm not too bothered about this as this doesn't really relate back to the discussion.

I would like to take this opportunity to express that the way that you two (Firetooth and Volkov) have been arguing with one another is nigh impossible to read. You guys should go back to typing in paragraphs much like Firetooth was doing originally. Thoughts were much more coherent then.

Where's the fun in that? :)